Sex-specific DNA-replication in the early mammalian embryo.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jul 2024
27 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
31
08
2023
accepted:
18
07
2024
medline:
27
7
2024
pubmed:
27
7
2024
entrez:
26
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The timing of DNA replication in mammals is crucial for minimizing errors and influenced by genome usage and chromatin states. Replication timing in the newly formed mammalian embryo remains poorly understood. Here, we have investigated replication timing in mouse zygotes and 2-cell embryos, revealing that zygotes lack a conventional replication timing program, which then emerges in 2-cell embryos. This program differs from embryonic stem cells and generally correlates with transcription and genome compartmentalization of both parental genomes. However, consistent and systematic differences existed between the replication timing of the two parental genomes, including considerably later replication of maternal pericentromeric regions compared to paternal counterparts. Moreover, maternal chromatin modified by Polycomb Repressive Complexes in the oocyte, undergoes early replication, despite belonging to the typically late-replicating B-compartment of the genome. This atypical and asynchronous replication of the two parental genomes may advance our understanding of replication stress in early human embryos and trigger strategies to reduce errors and aneuploidies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39060312
doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-50727-w
pii: 10.1038/s41467-024-50727-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6323Subventions
Organisme : Danmarks Grundforskningsfond (Danish National Research Foundation)
ID : DNRF115
Organisme : Novo Nordisk Fonden (Novo Nordisk Foundation)
ID : NNF22OC0080710
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Hansen, R. S. et al. Sequencing newly replicated DNA reveals widespread plasticity in human replication timing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 139–144 (2010).
pubmed: 19966280
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912402107
Rhind, N. & Gilbert, D. M. DNA replication timing. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a010132 (2013).
pubmed: 23838440
pmcid: 3721284
doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a010132
Julienne, H., Zoufir, A., Audit, B. & Arneodo, A. Human genome replication proceeds through four chromatin states. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003233 (2013).
pubmed: 24130466
pmcid: 3794905
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003233
Pope, B. D. et al. Topologically associating domains are stable units of replication-timing regulation. Nature 515, 402–405 (2014).
pubmed: 25409831
pmcid: 4251741
doi: 10.1038/nature13986
Dileep, V. et al. Topologically associating domains and their long-range contacts are established during early G1 coincident with the establishment of the replication-timing program. Genome Res. 25, 1104–1113 (2015).
pubmed: 25995270
pmcid: 4509995
doi: 10.1101/gr.183699.114
Rivera-Mulia, J. C. et al. Dynamic changes in replication timing and gene expression during lineage specification of human pluripotent stem cells. Genome Res. 25, 1091–1103 (2015).
pubmed: 26055160
pmcid: 4509994
doi: 10.1101/gr.187989.114
Aran, D., Toperoff, G., Rosenberg, M. & Hellman, A. Replication timing-related and gene body-specific methylation of active human genes. Hum. Mol. Genet. 20, 670–680 (2011).
pubmed: 21112978
doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddq513
Suzuki, M. et al. Late-replicating heterochromatin is characterized by decreased cytosine methylation in the human genome. Genome Res. 21, 1833–1840 (2011).
pubmed: 21957152
pmcid: 3205568
doi: 10.1101/gr.116509.110
Du, Z. et al. Allelic reprogramming of 3D chromatin architecture during early mammalian development. Nature 547, 232–235 (2017).
pubmed: 28703188
doi: 10.1038/nature23263
Flyamer, I. M. et al. Single-nucleus Hi-C reveals unique chromatin reorganization at oocyte-to-zygote transition. Nature 544, 110–114 (2017).
pubmed: 28355183
pmcid: 5639698
doi: 10.1038/nature21711
Dileep, V. & Gilbert, D. M. Single-cell replication profiling to measure stochastic variation in mammalian replication timing. Nat. Commun. 9, 427 (2018).
pubmed: 29382831
pmcid: 5789892
doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02800-w
Miura, H. et al. Single-cell DNA replication profiling identifies spatiotemporal developmental dynamics of chromosome organization. Nat. Genet. 51, 1356–1368 (2019).
pubmed: 31406346
doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0474-z
Marchal, C. et al. Genome-wide analysis of replication timing by next-generation sequencing with E/L Repli-seq. Nat. Protoc. 13, 819–839 (2018).
pubmed: 29599440
pmcid: 6044726
doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.148
Takahashi, S. et al. Genome-wide stability of the DNA replication program in single mammalian cells. Nat. Genet. 51, 529–540 (2019).
pubmed: 30804559
doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0347-5
Nakatani, T. et al. Emergence of replication timing during early mammalian development. Nature 625, 401–409 (2024).
pubmed: 38123678
doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06872-1
Shuangyi, X. et al. DNA replication in early mammalian embryos is patterned, predisposing lamina-associated regions to fragility. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.25.573304 (2023).
Ferreira, J. & Carmo-Fonseca, M. Genome replication in early mouse embryos follows a defined temporal and spatial order. J. Cell Sci. 110, 889–897 (1997).
pubmed: 9133676
doi: 10.1242/jcs.110.7.889
Bouniol-Baly, C., Nguyen, E., Besombes, D. & Debey, P. Dynamic organization of DNA replication in one-cell mouse embryos: relationship to transcriptional activation. Exp. Cell Res. 236, 201–211 (1997).
pubmed: 9344600
doi: 10.1006/excr.1997.3708
Dahl, J. A. et al. Broad histone H3K4me3 domains in mouse oocytes modulate maternal-to-zygotic transition. Nature 537, 548–552 (2016).
pubmed: 27626377
pmcid: 6283663
doi: 10.1038/nature19360
Liu, X. et al. Distinct features of H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 chromatin domains in pre-implantation embryos. Nature 537, 558–562 (2016).
pubmed: 27626379
doi: 10.1038/nature19362
Zhang, B. et al. Allelic reprogramming of the histone modification H3K4me3 in early mammalian development. Nature 537, 553–557 (2016).
pubmed: 27626382
doi: 10.1038/nature19361
Xia, W. et al. Resetting histone modifications during human parental-to-zygotic transition. Science 365, 353–360 (2019).
pubmed: 31273069
doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5118
Chen, Z., Djekidel, M. N. & Zhang, Y. Distinct dynamics and functions of H2AK119ub1 and H3K27me3 in mouse preimplantation embryos. Nat. Genet. 53, 551–563 (2021).
pubmed: 33821005
pmcid: 8092361
doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00821-2
Peaston, A. E. et al. Retrotransposons regulate host genes in mouse oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Dev. Cell 7, 597–606 (2004).
pubmed: 15469847
doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2004.09.004
Franke, V. et al. Long terminal repeats power evolution of genes and gene expression programs in mammalian oocytes and zygotes. Genome Res. 27, 1384–1394 (2017).
pubmed: 28522611
pmcid: 5538554
doi: 10.1101/gr.216150.116
Sankar, A. et al. KDM4A regulates the maternal-to-zygotic transition by protecting broad H3K4me3 domains from H3K9me3 invasion in oocytes. Nat. Cell Biol. 22, 380–388 (2020).
pubmed: 32231309
pmcid: 7212036
doi: 10.1038/s41556-020-0494-z
Brind’Amour, J. et al. LTR retrotransposons transcribed in oocytes drive species-specific and heritable changes in DNA methylation. Nat. Commun. 9, 3331 (2018).
pubmed: 30127397
pmcid: 6102241
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05841-x
McLay, D. W. & Clarke, H. J. Remodelling the paternal chromatin at fertilization in mammals. Reproduction 125, 625–633 (2003).
pubmed: 12713425
pmcid: 5123868
doi: 10.1530/rep.0.1250625
Aguirre-Lavin, T. et al. 3D-FISH analysis of embryonic nuclei in mouse highlights several abrupt changes of nuclear organization during preimplantation development. BMC Dev. Biol. 12, 30 (2012).
pubmed: 23095683
pmcid: 3517311
doi: 10.1186/1471-213X-12-30
Palmerola, K. L. et al. Replication stress impairs chromosome segregation and preimplantation development in human embryos. Cell 185, 2988–3007.e2920 (2022).
pubmed: 35858625
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.06.028
Kort, D. H. et al. Human embryos commonly form abnormal nuclei during development: a mechanism of DNA damage, embryonic aneuploidy, and developmental arrest. Hum. Reprod. 31, 312–323 (2016).
pubmed: 26621855
Ke, Y. et al. 3D chromatin structures of mature gametes and structural reprogramming during mammalian embryogenesis. Cell 170, 367–381.e320 (2017).
pubmed: 28709003
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.029
Moindrot, B. et al. 3D chromatin conformation correlates with replication timing and is conserved in resting cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 9470–9481 (2012).
pubmed: 22879376
pmcid: 3479194
doi: 10.1093/nar/gks736
Sima, J. et al. Identifying cis elements for spatiotemporal control of mammalian DNA replication. Cell 176, 816–830.e818 (2019).
pubmed: 30595451
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.036
Muller, C. A. & Nieduszynski, C. A. DNA replication timing influences gene expression level. J. Cell Biol. 216, 1907–1914 (2017).
pubmed: 28539386
pmcid: 5496624
doi: 10.1083/jcb.201701061
Mei, H. et al. H2AK119ub1 guides maternal inheritance and zygotic deposition of H3K27me3 in mouse embryos. Nat. Genet. 53, 539–550 (2021).
pubmed: 33821003
doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00820-3
Xu, Q. et al. SETD2 regulates the maternal epigenome, genomic imprinting and embryonic development. Nat. Genet. 51, 844–856 (2019).
pubmed: 31040401
doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0398-7
Ishiuchi, T. et al. Reprogramming of the histone H3.3 landscape in the early mouse embryo. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 28, 38–49 (2021).
pubmed: 33169018
doi: 10.1038/s41594-020-00521-1
Zhang, C. et al. The chromatin remodeler Snf2h is essential for oocyte meiotic cell cycle progression. Genes Dev. 34, 166–178 (2020).
pubmed: 31919188
pmcid: 7000916
doi: 10.1101/gad.331157.119
Santini, L. et al. Genomic imprinting in mouse blastocysts is predominantly associated with H3K27me3. Nat. Commun. 12, 3804 (2021).
pubmed: 34155196
pmcid: 8217501
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23510-4
Du, Z. et al. Polycomb group proteins regulate chromatin architecture in mouse oocytes and early embryos. Mol. Cell 77, 825–839.e827 (2020).
pubmed: 31837995
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.11.011
Jung, Y. H. et al. Maintenance of CTCF- and transcription factor-mediated interactions from the gametes to the early mouse embryo. Mol. Cell 75, 154–171.e155 (2019).
pubmed: 31056445
pmcid: 6625867
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.04.014
Jung, Y. H. et al. Chromatin states in mouse sperm correlate with embryonic and adult regulatory landscapes. Cell Rep. 18, 1366–1382 (2017).
pubmed: 28178516
pmcid: 5313040
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.01.034
Ryba, T. et al. Evolutionarily conserved replication timing profiles predict long-range chromatin interactions and distinguish closely related cell types. Genome Res. 20, 761–770 (2010).
pubmed: 20430782
pmcid: 2877573
doi: 10.1101/gr.099655.109
Yaffe, E. et al. Comparative analysis of DNA replication timing reveals conserved large-scale chromosomal architecture. PLoS Genet. 6, e1001011 (2010).
pubmed: 20617169
pmcid: 2895651
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1001011
Nichols, M. H. & Corces, V. G. Principles of 3D compartmentalization of the human genome. Cell Rep. 35, 109330 (2021).
pubmed: 34192544
pmcid: 8265014
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109330
Mayer, W., Smith, A., Fundele, R. & Haaf, T. Spatial separation of parental genomes in preimplantation mouse embryos. J. Cell Biol. 148, 629–634 (2000).
pubmed: 10684246
pmcid: 2169371
doi: 10.1083/jcb.148.4.629
Borsos, M. et al. Genome-lamina interactions are established de novo in the early mouse embryo. Nature 569, 729–733 (2019).
pubmed: 31118510
pmcid: 6546605
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1233-0
Marchal, C., Sima, J. & Gilbert, D. M. Control of DNA replication timing in the 3D genome. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 721–737 (2019).
pubmed: 31477886
doi: 10.1038/s41580-019-0162-y
Cimini, D., Cameron, L. A. & Salmon, E. D. Anaphase spindle mechanics prevent mis-segregation of merotelically oriented chromosomes. Curr. Biol. 14, 2149–2155 (2004).
pubmed: 15589159
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.11.029
Worrall, J. T. et al. Non-random Mis-segregation of human chromosomes. Cell Rep. 23, 3366–3380 (2018).
pubmed: 29898405
pmcid: 6019738
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.05.047
Zhang, C. Z. et al. Chromothripsis from DNA damage in micronuclei. Nature 522, 179–184 (2015).
pubmed: 26017310
pmcid: 4742237
doi: 10.1038/nature14493
Zheng, H. et al. Resetting epigenetic memory by reprogramming of histone modifications in mammals. Mol. Cell 63, 1066–1079 (2016).
pubmed: 27635762
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.08.032
Reichmann, J. et al. Dual-spindle formation in zygotes keeps parental genomes apart in early mammalian embryos. Science 361, 189–193 (2018).
pubmed: 30002254
doi: 10.1126/science.aar7462
Xu, X., Li, L., Zhang, C. & Meng, L. Observation of two separate bipolar spindles in the human zygote. J. Assist Reprod. Genet. 36, 601–602 (2019).
pubmed: 30927120
pmcid: 6505015
doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01440-x
Wolff, D. J., Miller, A. P., Van Dyke, D. L., Schwartz, S. & Willard, H. F. Molecular definition of breakpoints associated with human Xq isochromosomes: implications for mechanisms of formation. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 58, 154–160 (1996).
pubmed: 8554051
pmcid: 1914957
Barbouti, A. et al. The breakpoint region of the most common isochromosome, i(17q), in human neoplasia is characterized by a complex genomic architecture with large, palindromic, low-copy repeats. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 1–10 (2004).
pubmed: 14666446
doi: 10.1086/380648
Scott, S. A., Cohen, N., Brandt, T., Warburton, P. E. & Edelmann, L. Large inverted repeats within Xp11.2 are present at the breakpoints of isodicentric X chromosomes in Turner syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 19, 3383–3393 (2010).
pubmed: 20570968
pmcid: 2916707
doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddq250
Costa, G., Barra, V., Lentini, L., Cilluffo, D. & Di Leonardo, A. DNA demethylation caused by 5-Aza-2’-deoxycytidine induces mitotic alterations and aneuploidy. Oncotarget 7, 3726–3739 (2016).
pubmed: 26771138
pmcid: 4826165
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.6897
Martinez AC & van Wely, K. H. Centromere fission, not telomere erosion, triggers chromosomal instability in human carcinomas. Carcinogenesis 32, 796–803 (2011).
doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgr069
Gravholt, C. H., Friedrich, U., Caprani, M. & Jorgensen, A. L. Breakpoints in Robertsonian translocations are localized to satellite III DNA by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genomics 14, 924–930 (1992).
pubmed: 1478673
doi: 10.1016/S0888-7543(05)80113-2
Girardi, G., Lingo, J. J., Fleming, S. D. & Regal, J. F. Essential role of complement in pregnancy: from implantation to parturition and beyond. Front. Immunol. 11, 1681 (2020).
pubmed: 32849586
pmcid: 7411130
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01681
Escriba, M. J., Vendrell, X. & Peinado, V. Segmental aneuploidy in human blastocysts: a qualitative and quantitative overview. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 17, 76 (2019).
pubmed: 31526391
pmcid: 6745804
doi: 10.1186/s12958-019-0515-6
Babariya, D., Fragouli, E., Alfarawati, S., Spath, K. & Wells, D. The incidence and origin of segmental aneuploidy in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum. Reprod. 32, 2549–2560 (2017).
pubmed: 29126206
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex324
Hayashi, K. & Saitou, M. Generation of eggs from mouse embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Protoc. 8, 1513–1524 (2013).
pubmed: 23845963
doi: 10.1038/nprot.2013.090
Miura, H. et al. Mapping replication timing domains genome wide in single mammalian cells with single-cell DNA replication sequencing. Nat. Protoc. 15, 4058–4100 (2020).
pubmed: 33230331
doi: 10.1038/s41596-020-0378-5
Nakagata N. Transgenic Mouse Methods and Protocols (eds Hofker M. H., van Deursen J.) (Humana Press, 2011).
Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).
pubmed: 22743772
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019
Nilsen, G. et al. Copynumber: Efficient algorithms for single- and multi-track copy number segmentation. BMC Genomics 13, 591 (2012).
pubmed: 23442169
pmcid: 3582591
doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-591
Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnetjournal 17, 1 (2011).
Krueger, F. & Andrews, S. R. SNPsplit: allele-specific splitting of alignments between genomes with known SNP genotypes. F1000Res 5, 1479 (2016).
pubmed: 27429743
pmcid: 4934512
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.9037.1
Keane, T. M. et al. Mouse genomic variation and its effect on phenotypes and gene regulation. Nature 477, 289–294 (2011).
pubmed: 21921910
pmcid: 3276836
doi: 10.1038/nature10413
Doran, A. G. et al. Deep genome sequencing and variation analysis of 13 inbred mouse strains defines candidate phenotypic alleles, private variation and homozygous truncating mutations. Genome Biol. 17, 167 (2016).
pubmed: 27480531
pmcid: 4968449
doi: 10.1186/s13059-016-1024-y
Lilue, J. et al. Sixteen diverse laboratory mouse reference genomes define strain-specific haplotypes and novel functional loci. Nat. Genet. 50, 1574–1583 (2018).
pubmed: 30275530
pmcid: 6205630
doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0223-8
Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).
pubmed: 22388286
pmcid: 3322381
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923
Lassmann, T. SAMStat 2: quality control for next generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 39, btad019 (2023).
pubmed: 36637208
pmcid: 9850270
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad019
Lassmann, T., Hayashizaki, Y. & Daub, C. O. SAMStat: monitoring biases in next generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 27, 130–131 (2011).
pubmed: 21088025
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq614
Bakker, B. et al. Single-cell sequencing reveals karyotype heterogeneity in murine and human malignancies. Genome Biol. 17, 115 (2016).
pubmed: 27246460
pmcid: 4888588
doi: 10.1186/s13059-016-0971-7
R Core Team. R: A Language And Environment For Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).
Lerdrup, M., Johansen, J. V., Agrawal-Singh, S. & Hansen, K. An interactive environment for agile analysis and visualization of ChIP-sequencing data. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 23, 349–357 (2016).
pubmed: 26926434
doi: 10.1038/nsmb.3180
Edgar, R., Domrachev, M. & Lash, A. E. Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 207–210 (2002).
pubmed: 11752295
pmcid: 99122
doi: 10.1093/nar/30.1.207
O’Leary, N. A. et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D733–D745 (2016).
pubmed: 26553804
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1189
Karolchik, D. et al. The UCSC Table Browser data retrieval tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D493–D496 (2004).
pubmed: 14681465
pmcid: 308837
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh103
Wingett, S. W. & Andrews, S. FastQ Screen: a tool for multi-genome mapping and quality control. F1000Res 7, 1338 (2018).
pubmed: 30254741
pmcid: 6124377
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15931.1
Ewels, P., Magnusson, M., Lundin, S. & Kaller, M. MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics 32, 3047–3048 (2016).
pubmed: 27312411
pmcid: 5039924
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354
Sankar A., Johansen, J. V. & Borup, R. Single oocyte/embryo RNASeq data processing. Protocolexchange https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.21804/v2 (2020).
Felix Krueger F. J., P. Ewels, E. Afyounian, & B. Schuster-Boeckler. Trimgalore, GitHub repository. https://github.com/FelixKrueger/TrimGalore (2021).
Li, H. et al. The Sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).
pubmed: 19505943
pmcid: 2723002
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352
Amemiya, H. M., Kundaje, A. & Boyle, A. P. The ENCODE blacklist: identification of problematic regions of the genome. Sci. Rep. 9, 9354 (2019).
pubmed: 31249361
pmcid: 6597582
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45839-z
Quinlan, A. R. & Hall, I. M. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841–842 (2010).
pubmed: 20110278
pmcid: 2832824
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033